franco: ibm shared charles's concern that american kids were falling behind in math and science. and as usual, they gave the office free rein to address the problem. maybe, charles felt, a film could help. narrator: we begin with a scene one meter wide, which we view from just one meter away. now, every ten seconds, we will look from ten times farther away, and our field of view will be ten times wider. franco: "powers of ten" would become the best known of all the eames films, viewed in countless classrooms and copied freely by filmmakers around the world. schrader: everyone has seen "powers of ten." they may not have seen the version charles did, but they have seen one of the countless rip-offs of that film. narrator: ten to the sixth, a one with six zeros,

a million meters -- soon the earth will show as a solid sphere. tondreau: nobody had done a movie like that. how can you fail, doing a cosmic zoom in and out from all that is? and so the concept is, all by itself, mind-blowing. narrator: the trip back to the picnic on the lakefront will be a sped-up version, reducing the distance to the earth's surface by one power of ten every two seconds. it's "ch-ch-ch-ch-shoo," excessive information, dizzying information. narrator: ten to the ninth meters, ten to the eighth... schrader: like in a chase sequence in a movie, everything is going by so fast, it forces the observer to choose the information that's truly important, which is the car or the person that is running away from you -- i.e., the idea. narrator: one. we are back at our starting point. schrader: eames was aware that, in fact, that this was somewhat dizzying, and that it wasn't possible to get all of this information across

in a single viewing, and that was fine. what he probably didn't know was that he was also looking into the future of audio-visual perception. the pace at which we receive information today is as fast as he was doing back then. narrator: as a single proton fills our scene, we reach the edge of present understanding. sussman: as time went on, charles became more and more and more interested in ideas, especially science and mathematics. ray was less engaged. i mean, i'm no mathematician, and i'm no -- not an architect, i'm not -- i haven't had certain training, so i just try to help in the way that i -- in any way i can. i don't stop to think whether i can.

i just go as far as i can. and if i -- if i can't, i can't. tondreau: i think ray may have suffered from a feeling of marginalization, because some of those last projects were heavy on ideas and not as heavy on the kind of visual richness that was ray's forte. giovannini: she's no longer as instrumental in the entire thing. she can apply an aesthetic, she can dress a set, and so on, but, um, she's no longer as central. franco: ray's exquisite taste, her eye for form and color, made her indispensible to the office. but it could also be a terrible burden. oppewall: i remember peering into ray's office

only once or twice, because when the door opened and i looked into it, i thought, "i don't ever want to look in there again, because it's a little frightening." ashby: ray had a little room, smaller than charles's, directly across the hall from his, that was just absolutely jammed with all of her little pieces of paper and all of her little slides and all of the little notes that people had mailed to her and that she was mailing to them. beebe: and she would go in and find things. she would say, "oh, i have one," and she would disappear into the room and come out with the perfect kite. or she'd go in and find the perfect scarf or something. she would go, and she would fuss with it, and change it one day, and the next day, she would look at it again and change a little something else. and i think over the years,

the perfectionism did get in the way. in a way, it crippled her. woman: here is oh, a picnic basket, a drawing of a basket. up in seaview village, so probably deborah sussman. it's a letter from lily saarinen. that's cool. look at that, i've never seen that. there we go -- "dearest queen of all pack rats." i think it was almost a nervous tic with her. she was constantly making notes, and usually on the back of benson & hedges wrappers. this is one of the wrappers, and on this side she designed something that looks very reminiscent of some of her fabric designs. and you turn it over, and you see it's a benson & hedges. and on this side are notes she made for lighting of the puppet shows at the ibm pavilion. caplan: you'd find them everywhere. they'd drive you crazy. and they could say, "buy soap,"

or "liver and onions for dinner," or they'd have very elaborate ideas. marilyn neuhart: she had her suits made, and they had pockets that went all the way to the hem. so whatever she wanted to keep, she would just shove in the pockets. man: so what would happen with these notes? mcaleer: well, for a time, she asked the staff to try to type them up, and i think it became too overwhelming for the staff. it was such an avalanche of notes. tondreau: ray didn't communicate like everybody else does. she expected that you pre-understood what she was talking about. the people who didn't make the effort would sometimes use the epithet "crazy rayzy," simply because they didn't understand her. but ray is not crazy. she's brilliant. beebe: and ray had a lot of competition for charles's attention, which i don't think anybody ever really gave her credit for. that everybody wanted charles and not ray.

oppewall: he was the guy that the ibm executives would call. he was the guy that you went to to discuss the projects intellectually. he was very charismatic. charles was extremely charismatic. he was very charismatic. he was very handsome. he was very handsome and very charismatic. i know that word is really overused, but he was. and especially very charismatic to women. blaich: he reminded me of henry fonda, and i met henry fonda one time, and i told henry fonda this, that i thought they looked alike, and he said, "that's a compliment." sussman: i mean, he had these dimples, and he -- "aw, shucks," kind of guy. schrader: he was handsome and smart, and cool. so, you know, that's a kind of lethal combination.

wechsler: it was the vision. it was the personality. it was the charm. it was the unexpected. it was the person. this is just a small selection of letters that i went through to find things that pertain particularly to the work. "in the next few weeks, i must pull together a preliminary film for the 'franklin and jefferson' show." and then the rest is personal. beebe: i think their marriage, it was a mystery to everybody, in a way. they were emotionally extremely bonded. but he found excitement and thrills outside of ray,

and outside of the office, which was really crushing to her. wechsler: i met him when he was on the visiting committee for the architecture department at m.i.t. and i was a young assistant professor. charles said, "let's experiment with some films on art." i have many, many letters, extraordinary letters. because we didn't live in the same city, we tried to see each other as we could. he had come to london, and i was there, and i could not get away. and he said, "i will come and stand in front of the house at a certain time," and i slipped out of this rather formal dinner, and there he was, and we just looked at each other.

we had a very profound love for each other. he wanted very much for us to get married and to have a child, and to close -- he wanted to close the eames office in venice, which he found very burdensome, and for us to open an office together in new york. and i made a decision -- and i don't know if was the right decision -- that i couldn't do it to ray. because i had a friendship with her, but above all because they had been together so long, and i knew how much she depended on him. and i said, "i can't do it." beebe: ray dealt with it very privately.

she was hurt deeply, but she wasn't the kind of person who would have said, "it's me or her." oppewall: i don't think she wanted to leave. i think it was something that she had to accept. this wasn't the era of easy-come, easy-go relationships. there was too much shared life and community, and the fact that he, you know, had other relationships outside of the office... he seemed to be constructed that way. kirkham: but there is a position that i think is nonsense, which is to say that because charles was having a relationship with somebody else that he couldn't then carry on a collaboration with ray. i mean, that clearly didn't happen.

franco: in fact, charles and ray were about to collaborate on the largest, most complex project the office would ever undertake. for the nation's bicentennial celebration in 1976, the eames office designed "the world of franklin and jefferson," a traveling show made up of three films, 40,000 words translated into four languages, and thousands of photographs and objects, including a stuffed bison. when "franklin and jefferson" opened in paris, it was seen by 50,000 people in two months. more than a thousand visitors saw it each day in london and warsaw. but when it came to new york, the reception was different. albrecht: when it appeared at the metropolitan museum of art, the new york times reviewed it, and the headline was,

"what is this stuff doing at the met?" it was one of the first times the eameses were ever criticized. it had an enormous amount of text. nobody could have possibly read it all, it was so dense. wurman: this show was a bit picky for me, too many little objects that i would remember none. it was too many things to see. i can remember about ten things. he knew so much about all these things, he couldn't edit out something. these are things of the period and of the time, from mount vernon. wurman: they were all so interesting to him, and he was familiar with them, and he could see all these connections. but you can't keep it all in your head if you're not that familiar with it. oppewall: you could call it clutter, but that's not what charles would have called it, because clutter is just stuff that's dropped and abandoned and forgotten and left there.

it was dense, and it was complex, but there was a mind at work placing it there. whether you as the recipient were willing and able to accept that is another question. albrecht: they're pushing up against the envelope of what technology could do, because they're trying to give the visitor a hypertext experience, but they're doing it in physical space. and it doesn't work. they are anticipating what the computer can do today very easily with layering text and giving you at different levels. so it's a failure, but it's an honest failure. the criticism of "franklin and jefferson" hit charles hard. demetrios: the "franklin and jefferson" show was an exhausting show because it was huge,

and i think sort of the machinery of doing that was just tiring. tondreau: i saw charles at his happiest when he was getting to do a lot of photography. and he was very engaged directly on the creative process of doing the photographs -- which led me to the idea that maybe he felt he was missing something, you know, the transition to more of an executive position at the office. beebe: it was very hard for him, because he didn't really have a successor, and for the years that i was there, he was always looking for the perfect person. it was a battle one day with the ibm representative, mike sullivan, and mike said, "why don't you shut this down?" and he said, "i'd like to." and sullivan said, "what would you do?" and he said, "i'd just travel and shoot." "but," he said, "i don't know what to do about ray,

and closing the office." beebe: he was tired, and he was, i don't know if it was his heart, but he was cold a lot. i brought him one morning -- it was a saturday morning, and i'd made applesauce cake or something, and i brought it to the office, and it was still warm, and he took it, pressed it to his chest, and he was thrilled to have that warmth just sort of on his chest. john neuhart: i was out of the office the day that he died. it was, in a way, it was expected. sussman: it just didn't seem possible. i mean, i knew that some people that charles worked with,

men in the east, wept. he was such a dominant force in the lives of designers that... it was like there was suddenly a big empty hole. oppewall: there are still days when i'm driving down the highway, thinking about things, and i think, "why did you die? i'm not through with you yet! i haven't finished asking you the questions i wanted to ask." he was the most important person in my life. i mean, he could be, he could really be tough, you know,

but he... he was an extraordinary person. beebe: after charles died, suddenly ray was the head of the office. she gathered everybody around, and she talked about her goals and what she wanted to do, and how she needed our help. and it was really very powerful, because she had never done that before. but she felt this huge burden about carrying on the name and carrying on the office. and i think it was killing her. and i said, "come on, ray, why don't you just close the office, and let's go and paint." and she said "no, that's all in the past. i can't do that anymore."

franco: without charles, activity in the eames office dwindled, until it was time to finally close 901. ray focused on the painstaking work of cataloguing the voluminous 40-year output of the eames office. nearly 350,000 photographs and half a million documents had to be organized for shipment to the library of congress. but over the years, a new generation lifted ray from charles's shadow, discovering in her exuberant design sense a refreshing alternative to the austerity of modernism. and ray seemed to finally find her voice as one of the most influential women of american design. best for the most for the least,

that was always the principle. that's why we became interested in mass production. sussman: at that point, women began to point to ray. you know, "if there are two eameses, why aren't they both credited?" and now, of course, they are. beebe: she kept saying, in the hospital, "what day is it?" and i would say, "it's wednesday the 18th." and she would say, "oh." and then the next time i would come, then she would say, "what day is it?" "it's thursday." "oh."

i think she wanted to die on the same day as charles because it sort of symbolized their being one. her last statement was one of being with charles. this guy and that guy could trade places. there's probably an eames chair literally in every single issue that we've published. you know, you could go from the dax to the dss to the lcw, you know, you'll get this whole range. man: clockwise just a little. just a little. the furniture still has a quality that every young designer

is searching for, because of the amount of thought that's been put into it by everyone whose hands touch the project. i think you see that optimism of the american spirit in their design. it provided just a great blueprint for how we could live our lives. peatross: what furniture designers ever have produced 40 to 50 pieces of furniture that have been in production for five decades? but the other thing is the sheer joy, that aspect of play. no one else, i think, had that combination of the pragmatic and the aesthetic. narrator: seven... sussman: they loved to say, "we don't do art. we solve problems." it's the process. it's, how do we get from where we are to where we want to be? narrator: grasp the rear of the viewfinder... demetrios: charles and ray were always looking to the future. they weren't sort of sitting around, telling war stories about organic furniture.

what they were doing is like, "what's the next thing?" albrecht: they were there for the major moments in american history, and they were really the pioneers of the information age. narrator: the visitor can try out the computer as a carrier of information. albrecht: the breadth of the work is extraordinary, but there is also a unifying theme of beauty and a desire to reach a broad audience. so if it was pulled forward a little bit? every designer owes them some amount of debt, but at the same time, part of that debt should be to kind of take what they did and move beyond it.

but at the same time, part of that debt should be to kind of there are over 12,000 diseases in the world. some take years to diagnose and treat. how can doctors find insights in a body of medical knowledge that doubles every five years? new solutions based on ibm watson are being developed to help doctors analyze a patient's history, symptoms, and the latest medical literature to make faster, more accurate diagnoses. hello, my name is watson. let's build a smarter planet. major funding for this program has been provided by...

by an award from the national endowment for the arts. art works. additional funding for "american masters" provided by... additional funding for this program provided by... and by contributions to your pbs station from...

to learn more about "eames: the architect and the painter," visit pbs.org. "eames: the architect and the painter," is available on dvd for $29.95 plus shipping. to order, call... or write to the address on your screen.

>> rose: welcome to our program. tonight a conversation with governor mitt romney about running for president. do you ask yourself are we missing something or we haven't been able to break through that point? >> let's look at tha last campaign. did anyone break above 25%? no, john mccain was at that level, fred thompson, rudy giuliani and myself were all battling; there was no one that got up to 40% or 50%. we have right now seven or eight very qualified people who are running for president, any one of which would do better than president obama. that notion tt some people are doing too well is not a notion that is an american notion. america has always welcomed and heralded success.

did thomas edison make too much? did henry ford make too much? did steve jobs make too much? does bill gates make too much? no, these people who did not make the nation poorer by them ving done well. they made the nation richer. they made the middle-class better off. the course... if your course in life is to say "how do i keep those top people are from doing so well?" you'll find a nation that's poor. the right course is to say "how can i get more people to do well? how can i encourage more risk takers?" that's the answer. >> rose: we end th appreciation of vaclav havel, former president of check reap, dissident playwright who died yesterday at his vacation home in the north of the czech republic. >> ( translated ): the world of today is a multipolar and multicultural world. and it's necessary to respect

different identities. to have understanding and be tolerant. but at the same time, one should know precisely the specifics and (inaudible) and it seems to me that the united states cannot lie its way out of its obligations to be a certain barrier to evil. >> rose: governor and the late vaclav havel when we continue.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: governor mitt romney is here. he is a leading contender for the 2012 republican presidential nomination. in a race characterized by the unexpected, his candidacy has remained stea, but the former massachusetts governor faces a stiff challenge from the rise of newt gingrich, the former speake primary voting begins in 15 days with the iowa caucus. the candidates are making their closing arguments about why they deserve to face president obama next november. i'm pleased to have governor mitt romney at this table. welcome. >> thank you, charlie, good to be with you. >> rose: i want to sort of begin by saying that i know that the issues are important and policies important and experience is important but i also know that we can read about those things and you have been been at all these debates talking about pocy a lot and a good political reporter said to

me that he rarely asks questions of candidates like you in which you had aeady answered them or in fact, expected to be asked of them. now, we'll do a little bit of that with north korea at the back end of this because it's on the cutting edge of the news story day. but i know he also said to me that he came to the back of the plane and a lot of reporters felt like they'd seen some sense of the humanity of the person. tell me how you see this ia of having america and reporters understand who you are as part of this process of wanting to be the president? >> you know, i think without question the reporters that not low my a campaign get to see who you are and should. i think the american people with time get to see who you are in the early stages it's very hard to know what a candate's personal beliefs and personal life has been about. in part because they see us only in these 60-second answers being provided in debates. but as time goes on and you do town meetingsand meet with

everyd people on everyday issues, you begin to flesh out more about who the person is and that's something which ihink is a posite part of the process. some in the media abuse that insight. so far not with me. but i know there's some people who are frightened of that kind of openness with the media for fear it will be storted in some way. but you know, i think you've got no choice but to open yourself up and take a good look. >> rose: do you think there are misconceptionsbout you? >> sure. there have to be at this early stage as the campaign goes on, particularly if i were to become the nominee. i'll be examined one way and the other and the result of that is people will have a good idea of who i am. >> rose: you come from a family where your father was a governor and your father wanted to be president. how long have you wanted to be president? >> it's been a very short period of time, actually. i never imagined i was going to get involved in politics. i my dad had advice that i happened to agree with. he said "don't get involved in

politics if you have to win elections to pay your mortgage." and number two, "don't get involved in politics if your kids are still young." he felt that kids would have their heads turned by a political career. he didn't run for office until he was 54 years old, the first time. i never imagined i would be independently able financially to get involved in politics. i started off at the bottom of a consulting firm. but by virtue of a number of things that developed in a very positive way i found myself able to follow his rules and try and make a difference. >> rose: so as soon as you were financially able you began to think "politics is a place where i can..." do what? >> well, i was very concerned about my own state. i took a foray in 1994 by running against ted ken day. i happen to think that the policies ted kennedy and liberal democrats had pursued had created permanent poverty underclass in america. i thought the welfare mentality of the 1960s had been terribly destructive to america and i wanted to run.

in this that case i was pretty sure i wouldn't be able to win. i knew i'd give him a run for his money. i hoped i might be able to win. there were a couple weeks when it looked like i might get there. he ended up winning. and by the way he had to take a mortgage out on his house to keep my fr winning. >> rose: he needed the money at the end. you were up by ten points at some point. >> i don't think i was that high. i may have led by one or two at some point or maybe a little more. but when he very aggressively came on he was able to hold on to that seat. >> rose: but tell me more about your dad. it's clear, you see these pictures of the two of you together and they suggest this is a special father/son relationship with huge impact on you. >> no question. my parents had an enormous impact on my life. i presume that's so with many, many people. i respected both of them a great deal. both ran for political office. my mom for u.s. senate, my dad for governor, and then president. my dad was unusual in that efs

born poor, didn't get a college degreend yet believed in america to such an extent that he didn't think that those starting disadvantages would keep him from accompliin his dreams. he loved america, was concerned th america was taking a pathway that would make us less able to defend our freedom and i share his views. and in many respects-- not all the issues-- but my fundamental philosophy, which is a deep and abiding faith in the goodness of america and the need to keep america strong from a values standpoint, from an economic standpoint and from a military standpoint is consistent with his views. >> rose: you mentioned the poverty underclass in the first race with senator kennedy. where do you think america is with respect to these basic economic queions of the division between rich and poor and a shrinking middle-class? >> oh, i think this is a time to be bold and the boldness is not trying to change america into some new economic model never before tested or into a model

that's been tested and proven false and ineffective. the old socialist model obviously hasn't worked anywhere in the world. the european model isn't working in europe. the only model that's ever worked is the american model of free enterprise where we open for people the ability to achieve whatever they might hope to accomplish in their life and by virtue of this idea of free enterprise and opportunity, a merritt-bad society, we find dividuals who invent and who create and help lift the entire economy and lift all people. but the idea this president has of saying government should step in and take from some to give to the others and thereby create economic justice, that will kill this country. that will kill our economy. that will make us prone to poverty. >> rose:ut we've had a progressive income tax for a while here and that is taking from some and giving to oers as you know. >> there is a progressivety and a recognition that those at the high end of the income scale will owe more than those at the very bottom, of course. and we will have a safety net in

this country. i'm not suggesting we... that the very wealthy get special breaks and get a better deal than anybody else. but i do believe that when you have a government begin to tell companies these are the ones we want to succeed, we're going to give money to these companies and you can't go here unless you're a union company. >> rose: this would be the boeing ce. >> the boeing case. you're watching the president bow to the financial interests in his party-- whether it's the extreme environmentalists or the union movement or whether it's the public sector unions-- the president has taken a course of suggesting that he and washington know better than free people choosing their ow paths in life. and that happens to have failed everywhere it's been tried. >> rose: yet in 2008 he overwhelmingly got the support of the american people to be president. what do youhink happened? >> one, he had no experience in leadership and he has failed as a leader. but number two he didn't understand how the economy works and didn't recognize that what

he was doing th his crafting of a stimulus plan and his regulatory regime that he was killing the economy and finally he spoke of hope and change and i think we've projected on his word change that he was going to bring america together. he spoke about that. working on a bipartisan basis. unifying the country. he's been the most divisive president i've ever seen. >> rose: the most divisive president you've ever seen? >> he has attacked one american after another. one group after another. he creates these straw men and says that republicans believe this terrible thing and aren't they awful. he went after insurance compa executives, wall street. all these bad people he finds out there. look, americans are not going to be apowerful and vibrant economic engine with a powerful middle-class if we attack one another. his oginal words of creating hope and oortunity and bringing us together, that's the right approach. he just hasn't followed it. >> rose: which brings us to

washington today and one issue which is the deadlock between the house and the senate. and ere is in many people's judgment a paralysis and a dysfunctionality that has prevented the country to do the kinds of things that have made it wha it is and has made it not only a competitive country but a leade in the world today. and that we may be losing that. anhow are you going toe different if y have the same intentions that he had to be able to bring people together? >> well, it requires leadership. in order for a body of 535 men and women to work in a way that's collaborative and achieves certain goals there has to be a leader that describes those goals, communicatess them to the american people, looks for, if you will, coalitions of people who share values and share common ground. that's what a leader does. instead of turning to the opposition party and attacking the party on... >> rose: what would you do if you were in the white house today? would you keep them there

throughout the holidays and say "unless you can come to an agreement nobody's going me"? that's adership. >> well, leadership... iedhat good occasion, as you know, and in some respects a difficult one in being elect governor in a state with a legislature that was 85% democrat. and over the months and years of our work together i found a way to build personal respect and rapport with the democratic leaders and hopefully they with mend so when we face crises we were able to have enough respect for one another tovercome them together. what's happened with this administration is that washington's become so divided and so bitter and, in my view, in large measure because the president dismissed the republicans in the first two years thinking he didn't need any republican votes-- d he didn't-- so he got his own way. knew that way has failed, he comes back and tries to blame the republicans and that has led to a setting where... >> rose: but now the republicans are saying even though there was overwhelming vote in the senate

in which senator mcconnell was with the majority, coming to the house and the house saying "no, we're not going to do that because even if it means there is no vote on this." >> well, again, if a leader has established personal relationships and rapport with people in both sides of the aisle, he brings them together in a quiet room without the media there and says "all right, look, what do you need? what are your concerns? what are your principles? is there some common ground here? can we achieve common ground here?" and that has not happened. look, i recognize washington is a tough place to get things done. but it requires an experienced leader who's willing not just to cast blame and point at the other pty but actually to have numerous meetings in other people's offices and to look for ways to find common ground. >> re: would you bthere keeping them there until they did something? >> any time there was a matter of great significance to the nation... >> rose: is this of great significance to the nation? >> you're referring to the payroll tax extension? >> rose:ure. the payroll tax extension i

something i support. i don't want to raise taxes on anyone. but it's not something that's going to change the nature of america's econom it's a band-aid. it's an important band-aid for those who need extra funds right now. theiddle-class is really suffering. bua fundamental restructuring of this economy to encourage job creation again is not going t occur by virtue of the payroll tax extension. >> rose: when you look at this great division that people talked about, whether it's 99% and 1%, i income equality, whether it's defined as n some sense as an a economy that's become unfair, what priority does that for you? how would you address that? >> my priority is not to say how can we take from some to give to others so we're more equal. that's what happens in entitlement societies. >> rose: but isn't that a simplistic understanding of saying "they want to take from some and give to the others"? >> i'm saying that's not the course i would take. and what i would say is that the right cose for america is to allow our entrepreneurs and

innovators and businesses lge and small to say let's invest in america again. and if they invest in america and america grows, that's good for the middle-class. my objective... the rich are doing just fine. i'm not out to try and say how do we help the rich. the poor have a safety net and we need to make sure the safety net is strong and has no holes in it. the real objective of anyone running for president in this cle has to be to help the middle-class. >> rose: but many in the middle-class don't feel this society is fair. the president addressed that in kansas city. >> oh, look, he... and fair by saying some people are making too much. that notion that some people are doing too well is not a notion that is an american tion. america has always welcomed and heralded success. did thomas edison make too much? did henry ford make too much? did steve jobs make too much? does bill gates make too much? no, these are people who did not make the nation poorer by them having done well. they made the nation richer. they made the middle-class

better off. the course... if your course in life is to say "how do i keep those top people from doing so well?" you'll find a nation that's poor. if the right course is to say how can i get more people do well, how can i encourage more risk takers? that's the answer. >> rose: how do you come to this... square this idea that we have to create jobs and we have to invest in the future and we have to invest in research, we have to invest in education all of which is anotr definition of spding wisely. and >> and the best place to spend wisely is not to have the government do e spending but to have people and their enterprises do the spending. when j.f.k. was president, the government in total-- federal, state, and local-- consumed 27% of the total economy. 27% of the g.d.p. now they're upto 37% of the g.d.p. and the democrat response is "give us more. let us tax more." look, at 37%, we're inches away from no longer bei a free economy.

the right course is not for the federal government to decide we're going to invest in various car companies. i'm talking about the electric car companies or solar energy like solyndra, the right course is to say let the private sector do that. the american model of free enterprise and free individuals, risk takers, that's the model-- the only model that's worked in the world to free people from poverty. the idea of saying no, instead we're going to try to regulate, overregular, overtax and take from... overregulate and tax and take from some to lift up the middle, there's just not... an old great line by margaret thatcher. the problem with socialism is sooner or later you run out of people's money. >> rose: is that what you think is going on in senator john rry socialism? >> i think there is in america an intent on the part of the president and his colleagues to make us more like europe. to... >> rose: more of a social democracy. >> well, yes, with a very dramatic expansion of the reach and the scale of government. and that is not working in

europe. it will certainly not work here. >> rose: let me talk about influences on you. we know about your father. but your mother. what influence did chef and would yo... what did your church have to do with being a missionary? >> my mom d a big influence in my life. i got the chance to work on her campaign for senate. she was running against an american institution, phillip hart, a wonderful man. she was unsuccessful in her bid but i learned from that exrience, watched her campaign hard. and knew that she was a person who, like my dad, has deep and abiding affection for this country and its principles. that's what i learned from my parents was how committed they were to the vision of the founding fathers of this country. providing for us not just political freedom but personal freedom. the right to choose our course in life. the right to achieve whatever our dreams might lead us to regaless of the circumstances of our birth. now you mentioned my faith and my church experience.

i was asked to go off and search my church as a missionary. i spent two and a halfears in france. that was a very revealing experience. charles de gaulle kicked the united states out, kicked our bases out of france. >> rose: left nato. >> left nato. there was a... knock on doors, people would say "e you america?" i'd say "yes." they'd say "get out of vietnam." it was a humbling and reorienting for someone like me who lived pretty darn well in america and from my experience the first two years i was out in a lower middle-class... >> rose: would it be better if there was a stronger connection between young people who are going to serve eir country or their church before they go to college? >> i think it's a maelous thing for young people to have anpportunity to serve and to step outside of the circle that they kw well. whether that by serving in the peace corps or americorps or in the military. nothing compares to the military

from that standpoint. the military is... really is a mortar vesselous experience for young people. and there are a number of ways people can serve. they can serve voluntarily in their communities. some offer experiences unlike anything else. >> rose: but don't you think the military has borne an extraordinary burden over the last several years because of iraq and because of afghanistan and because of the number of tours they've had to serve. >> oh, yeah. that's one of the reason why i'd like to add about 100,000 active duty personnel to our military. i think the burden borne by our national guard and active duty personnel is way out of line with what ople had expected when they signed up for that duty. but look how remarkably they've served and with so few complaints. it's just... it's an amazing thing. >> rose: tell me about heroes. either in e church or in public life or business. who are those people that you have read about or known that have made the a difference in your life? >> well, m parents are probably the most significant heroes

because of the proximity to their life and my ow but alsomy dad was a... just a remarkable personal history. i mean, he was born in mexico at age five or six came back to the u.s., his parents were u.s. citizens, came back to the u.s., his dad went broke more than once. my dad never graduated fm college. i mean... and then he became head of a car company. >> rose: american motors. >> made ramblers. ultimately became a governor of a state. and so, you know, i watched him it was just a tom non. the real deal. >> rose: was there something about wanting to pick up the standard that he had establishd? saying that following his advice you know, don't ever have... if you're going to pay a mortgage, don't depend on politics to pay it. but having made money to follow up and pick up the standard that your dad has left. the anything to that connection? i mean, you are who you are. >> yeah, i don't think i felt a ne to pick up his standard so much as a recognition of a sense of appreciation and duty to our

country. and so when i found myself in a position where i was able to serve it was a sense of obligation to that motivated me to get involved. had i not seen my dad run for political office it would have never crossed my mind. most people look at me and say "are you out of your mind? you have aize in business, why would you go off and run the olympics?" that was the first step... >> rose: and did you find more satisfaction there than you did in the private sector where you could make a difference d where there was an expectation of serving a lot of people? >> they are both places where you make a difference. i think there's a sense that somehow if you're in business you're just in it for yourself. being in business is good for america. successful business people building enterprises is what will help the middle-class have a better future. >> rose: you don't think the president understands that. but he clearly does, doesn't he? >> there's some comments made by him and his administration that

suggest that they think there's a difference this contribution. if youe in public service or what they call helping professions. look, people are in business and are wking hard to build an enterprise may be the by-product. they probably get in the enterprise for themselves and for the returns they think they'll generate for themselves. but the of peopleoing that-- as adam smith pointed out-- is liftineverybody. so for me my political rvice came as a result of... or at least my eyes were open the that by virtue of watching my parents take that path later in their life. >> rose: but you sometimes destroyed jobs. >> i'm sure the administration will use every weapon they can think of, some will be accurate, somenaccurate. if they attack the free enterprise system and citalist system they'll fd themselves on the short end of that argument. i'm proud of the fact that when

i was with bane capital every investment we made was designed to grow the interprize and make it more successful. in some cases businesses were in such trouble... i remember one business. i think it lost $72 million before we made the acquisition. you have to pear it back in order to save it and rebuild it. but in every case that i was involved in and we invested in some hundred different businesses we tried to make them grow and become more become more successful. >> rose: i want to talk about north korea for a second and bring it back to something you have spoken to before. give us the sense of what you think is required of presidential leadership at this moment with respect to the death of the north korean leader. >> well, we should be on the phone with, if you will, our trading partners in china and make sure they understand what our mutual interests ar >> rose: because they have the closest relationship to north korea and a long border. >> that's right. and two-thirds of north korea's

trade goes between china and north korea. so china needs to communicate to north korea the new leader, kim jo-un, hi son, this is what is important to us in china we can obviously communicate that as well and show that we are filled with resolve. that we will encourage a movement towards more... towards dernity, toward openness and they are that we are committed to keeping nuclear technology from being sent by north korea around the world. >> rose: but at the same time, you have said your first day in office you will accuse the chinese of currency manipulation that may lead to some kind of trade war and may have a negative impact on relations. but this is a perfect example where the united states and china ought to be on the same page. >> rose: well, let's say you found over the years your bank had been charging you an extra, i don't know, $10 a month in

fees that weren't applicable. and they kept doing it and doing it and doing it and you can say well, look, i need my banking relationship, i'm goi to need them to keep doing this. >> rose: you would go to tm and try to solve it. but solving it is not to go in and say "unless you change than i'm going to another bank and we'll have no relationship" if you need that bank at another final time. >> exactly. so the relationship with china has been such that over the years they have without question manipulated their currency to hold dn the prices of their goods. they have stolen intellectual property massively. they have hacked into our computers and stolen designs and technology and that can't be allowed to continue. i happen to believe that we establish a better relationship with china if they see as us people who are intelligent, who stands up for our rights. >> rose: don't they see us that way already? >> i think they haveo be chuckling and looking at us saying "can you believe these silly americans allowing china to get away with it?" there's no question that they have wiped out industries in

this country by virtue of that practice. we have to say th can't continue. at the same time china needs access to america's market. we're enormous trading partners, we want access to their market. they sell us this much stuff, we sell them that much stuff. they don't want that to go away. >> rose: this relationship is a very important relationship. >> critical. >> rose: the most important bilateral relationship we've probably had. >> a massively important bilateral lationship. >> rose: what the exception of israel. >> it's massively important and it's one that we'll maintain. but i'm not going to say gosh because it's so important i'll let them do whatever they want. no, we'll stand up for the things we believe in and where we have common interestss w do... we hopefully with do with regards to north korea. we don't want north korea selling nuclear technology around the world. we don'twant north korean's people suffering from starvation and other deprivation. china doesn't want the people from north korea rushing into china as refugees. there are a number of things that. where we can find common ground.